On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>"Sessions, William" >
>To: jonball@...
>Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
>Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM
>
>Mr. Ball:
>
>Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
>development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA
>will be published with a public comment period.

The initial claims standard proposal was published
for comment in 2002, and while that proposal is
under review so-called grass fed beef producers
can and have adopted it with U.S.D.A.'s full seal
of approval to offload their grain-finished beef onto
unsuspecting customers as grass-fed beef.

Here below is that proposed standard.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

And below is a statement from the same page urging
so-called grass fed beef producers to use that proposed
marketing claims standard while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make it final by publishing it.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

When published ALL "New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."

"AMS is seeking public comment on the following
proposed United States Standards for Livestock and
Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Grass fed beef, then, is grain finished, just like any other
steer in the feedlot, and U.S.D.A. is about to publish a
claims standard that will allow beef farmers to continue
deceiving their customers. A consumer reports magazine
confirms these concerns as follows;

[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program
for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only
add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no
limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with a
diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed
implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and
consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

The protests from these farmers and consumer groups can
be found on U.S.D.A.'s web site, and I've included two
here as examples;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

and

[The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
meaningless in the context of the current United States
cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
into effect.

The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore
becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
as in the proposed definition.

However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.

So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt

Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
feedlot, so don't be fooled by the meat pushers, here or
anywhere. You lose, Jon. Grass fed is grain finished, as
has been since the initial proposal's publication in 2002.
What made you think you could lie and get away with, liar
Jon?

Derek lied:

> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> >"Sessions, William" >
> >To: jonball@...
> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM
> >
> >Mr. Ball:
> >
> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA
> >will be published with a public comment period.
>
> The initial claims standard proposal was published
> for comment in 2002

....and is now being revised due to the fierce opposition it engendered
during the public comment period. William Sessions, the person in
charge of the proposed standard, says so.

Once again, Dreck, you lose.

On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek lied:
>> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>> >"Sessions, William" >
>> >To: jonball@...
>> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
>> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM
>> >
>> >Mr. Ball:
>> >
>> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
>> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA
>> >will be published with a public comment period.
>>
>> The initial claims standard proposal was published
>> for comment in 2002
>
>...and is now being revised

No, it not being revised, liar, and in the mean time,
while that claims standard is being proposed for
comment, so-called grass fed beef producers are
urged by USDA to adopt it. What part in that
don't you understand, you stupid, sick ****?

U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
proposal and published it for comment in 2002, and
while this proposal is under review so-called grass
fed beef producers can and have adopted it with
U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval to offload their
grain-finished beef onto unsuspecting customers as
grass-fed beef.

Here below is that proposed standard.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

And below is a statement from the same page urging so-
called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed
marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make them final by publishing them.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

When published ALL "New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."

"AMS is seeking public comment on the following
proposed United States Standards for Livestock and
Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Grass fed beef, then, is grain finished, just like any other
steer in the feedlot, and U.S.D.A. is about to publish a
claims standard that will allow beef farmers to continue
deceiving their customers. A consumer reports magazine
confirms these concerns as follows;

[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program
for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only
add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no
limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with a
diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed
implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and
consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

The protests from these farmers and consumer groups can
be found on U.S.D.A.'s web site, and I've included two
here as examples;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

and

[The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
meaningless in the context of the current United States
cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
into effect.

The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore
becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
as in the proposed definition.

However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.

So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt

Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
feedlot, so don't be fooled by the meat pushers, here or
anywhere.

Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks?

Beach Runner wrote:
> Don't you folks get tired

I *never* tire from beating on Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:14:48 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote:

>Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks?

**** off, you stupid ******.

Beach Runner wrote:
> Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks?

**** off, retard.

usual suspect wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks?
>
>
> **** off, retard.
A brilliant statement.

What a useless world you live in.

Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >Derek lied:
> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Sessions, William" >
> >> >To: jonball@...
> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM
> >> >
> >> >Mr. Ball:
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA
> >> >will be published with a public comment period.
> >>
> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published
> >> for comment in 2002
> >
> >...and is now being revised
>
> No, it not being revised,

YES, you dumb semi-literate ox, it is:

"A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under development by USDA."

They had a proposed standard, and it generated intense opposition. Now
they're revising it, and it is UNDER DEVELOPMENT, i.e., not in final
form.

Dreck, I honestly think you get up in the morning and drink a litre of
Stupid Juice. They must have had a promotion on it down at Tesco's,
and you bought several cases.

On 9 Sep 2005 14:26:25 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Sessions, William" >
>> >> >To: jonball@...
>> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
>> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM
>> >> >
>> >> >Mr. Ball:
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
>> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA
>> >> >will be published with a public comment period.
>> >>
>> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published
>> >> for comment in 2002
>> >
>> >...and is now being revised
>>
>> No, it not being revised,
>
>YES

You said that it had been dropped, you lying, sick ****,
and now, after being shown that it hasn't, you've changed
your claim to say that it's being revised instead, even
though Sessions wrote and told you that it was very
much alive and published for comment. Also, what you
keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed
claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed
beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby
allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as
grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed
beef producers have been lying to consumers since the
claims standard proposal was first published in 2002,
and most probably for a good while before that proposal
was even published.

Here below is that proposed standard.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

And below is a statement from the same page urging
so-called grass fed beef producers to use that proposed
marketing claims standard while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make it final by publishing it.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

When published ALL "New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."

"AMS is seeking public comment on the following
proposed United States Standards for Livestock and
Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Grass fed beef, then, is grain finished, just like any other
steer in the feedlot, and U.S.D.A. is about to publish a
claims standard that will allow beef farmers to continue
deceiving their customers. A consumer reports magazine
confirms these concerns as follows;

[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program
for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only
add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no
limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with a
diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed
implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and
consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

The protests from these farmers and consumer groups can
be found on U.S.D.A.'s web site, and I've included two
here as examples;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

and

[The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
meaningless in the context of the current United States
cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
into effect.

The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore
becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
as in the proposed definition.

However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.

So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt

Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
feedlot, so don't be fooled by the meat pushers, here or
anywhere. You lose, Jon. Grass fed is grain finished, as
has been since the initial proposal's publication in 2002.
What made you think you could lie and get away with it?

Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 14:26:25 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >Derek lied:
> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >> >Derek lied:
> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"Sessions, William" >
> >> >> >To: jonball@...
> >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
> >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mr. Ball:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
> >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA
> >> >> >will be published with a public comment period.
> >> >>
> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published
> >> >> for comment in 2002
> >> >
> >> >...and is now being revised
> >>
> >> No, it not being revised,
> >
> >YES
>
> You said that it had been dropped

I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped, Dreck, you
fearfully backpedaling oaf. I said the earlier proposed standard had
been dropped, and it has been. Given that a revision is *already*
underway, that earlier proposed standard for all intents and purposes
doesn't exist; it will *not* be issued with the language it contained,
so it has, indeed, been dropped.

On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>> >"Sessions, William" >
>> >To: jonball@...
>> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
>> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM
>> >
>> >Mr. Ball:
>> >
>> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
>> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA
>> >will be published with a public comment period.
>>
>> The initial claims standard proposal was published
>> for comment in 2002
>
>...and is now being revised

You said that it had been dropped, you lying, sick ****,
and now, after being shown that it hasn't, you've changed
your claim to say that it's being revised instead, even
though Sessions wrote and told you that it was very
much alive and published for comment. Also, what you
keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed
claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed
beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby
allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as
grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed
beef producers have been lying to consumers since the
claims standard proposal was first published in 2002,
and most probably for a good while before that proposal
was even published.

Here below is that proposed standard.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

And below is a statement from the same page urging
so-called grass fed beef producers to use that proposed
marketing claims standard while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make it final by publishing it.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

When published ALL "New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."

"AMS is seeking public comment on the following
proposed United States Standards for Livestock and
Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Grass fed beef, then, is grain finished, just like any other
steer in the feedlot, and U.S.D.A. is about to publish a
claims standard that will allow beef farmers to continue
deceiving their customers. A consumer reports magazine
confirms these concerns as follows;

[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program
for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only
add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no
limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with a
diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed
implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and
consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

The protests from these farmers and consumer groups can
be found on U.S.D.A.'s web site, and I've included two
here as examples;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

and

[The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
meaningless in the context of the current United States
cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
into effect.

The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore
becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
as in the proposed definition.

However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.

So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt

Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
feedlot, so don't be fooled by the meat pushers, here or
anywhere. You lose, Jon. Grass fed is grain finished, as
has been since the initial proposal's publication in 2002.
What made you think you could lie and get away with it?

Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >Derek lied:
> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Sessions, William" >
> >> >To: jonball@...
> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM
> >> >
> >> >Mr. Ball:
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA
> >> >will be published with a public comment period.
> >>
> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published
> >> for comment in 2002
> >
> >...and is now being revised
>
> You said that it had been dropped,

I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped, Dreck, you
fearfully backpedaling oaf. I said the earlier proposed standard had
been dropped, and it has been. Given that a revision is *already*
underway, that earlier proposed standard for all intents and purposes
doesn't exist; it will *not* be issued with the language it contained,
so it has, indeed, been dropped.

On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Sessions, William" >
>> >> >To: jonball@...
>> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
>> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM
>> >> >
>> >> >Mr. Ball:
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
>> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA
>> >> >will be published with a public comment period.
>> >>
>> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published
>> >> for comment in 2002
>> >
>> >...and is now being revised
>>
>> You said that it had been dropped,
>
>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped

[start - me]
> U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
> proposal and
[you]
...have now dropped it.
http://tinyurl.com/754e8

There are at least half a dozen statements from you
claiming USDA have dropped it, you lying piece of
shit, and now, after being shown that it hasn't, you've
changed your claim to say that it's being revised instead,
even though Sessions wrote and told you that it was very
much alive and published for comment. Also, what you
keep failing to acknowledge is that while the proposed
claims standard is up for comment so-called grass fed
beef producers are urged by USDA to adopt it, thereby
allowing beef producers to sell grain-finished beef as
grass-fed beef with USDA's seal of approval. Grain-fed
beef producers have been lying to consumers since the
claims standard proposal was first published in 2002,
and most probably for a good while before that proposal
was even published.

Here below is that proposed standard.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

And below is a statement from the same page urging
so-called grass fed beef producers to use that proposed
marketing claims standard while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make it final by publishing it.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

When published ALL "New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."

"AMS is seeking public comment on the following
proposed United States Standards for Livestock and
Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Grass fed beef, then, is grain finished, just like any other
steer in the feedlot, and U.S.D.A. is about to publish a
claims standard that will allow beef farmers to continue
deceiving their customers. A consumer reports magazine
confirms these concerns as follows;

[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program
for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only
add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no
limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with a
diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed
implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and
consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

The protests from these farmers and consumer groups can
be found on U.S.D.A.'s web site, and I've included two
here as examples;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

and

[The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
meaningless in the context of the current United States
cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
into effect.

The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore
becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
as in the proposed definition.

However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.

So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt

Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
feedlot, so don't be fooled by the meat pushers, here or
anywhere. You lose, Jon. Grass fed is grain finished, as
has been since the initial proposal's publication in 2002.
What made you think you could lie and get away with it?

Derek lied:
> On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >Derek lied:
> >> On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >> >Derek lied:
> >> >> On 9 Sep 2005 12:32:40 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"Sessions, William" >
> >> >> >To: jonball@...
> >> >> >Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
> >> >> >Date: Sep 9, 2005 10:52 AM
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mr. Ball:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Thanks for your message. A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
> >> >> >development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA
> >> >> >will be published with a public comment period.
> >> >>
> >> >> The initial claims standard proposal was published
> >> >> for comment in 2002
> >> >
> >> >...and is now being revised
> >>
> >> You said that it had been dropped,
> >
> >I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped
>
> [start - me]
> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
> > proposal and
> [you]
> ...have now dropped it.
> http://tinyurl.com/754e8

And indeed they have dropped that old Dec 2002 proposed standard, and
are hard at work on a revised proposal.

You said it wasn't being revised, you lying cuckold, and the letter
from
William Sessions says SPECIFICALLY that it is being revised.

I didn't say the whole endeavor was dropped, you liar; I said the old
version has been dropped, and indeed it has been.